Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 93 - Central Union Trust Co of New York v. Anderson County Tex

Central Union Trust Co of New York v. Anderson County Tex’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 93 · 1925

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 1959
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1959 · most notably Bromley v. McCaughn (1929), Piper v. Childs (1935)

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

2301925193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Wabash Railroad Company v. Adelbert College of the Western Reserve University · Julian v. Central Trust Co. · Hoffman v. McClelland · Compton v. Jesup · International & Great Northern Railway Co v. Anderson County

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is settled that, where in the progress of a suit in a federal court property has been drawn into the court’s custody and control, third persons claiming interests in or liens upon the property may be permitted to come into that court for the purpose of setting up^protecting, and enforcing, their claims, although the court could not consider or adjudicate their claims if it had not impounded the property. Power to deal with such claims is incident to the jurisdiction acquired in the suit wherein the impounding occurs, and may be invoked by a petition to intervene pro interesse suo or by a dependent bill. But in either case the proceeding is purely ancillary.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Ancillary suits are not limited to those initiated by persons who desire to come in and have their rights determined. Such a suit may be maintained by the plaintiff in the principal suit against strangers to the record to determine a controversy having relation to the property in the custody of the court and which, in justice to the parties before the court, ought to be determined in the principal suit. See Compton v. Jesup, 68 F. 263 , 284, 15 C. C. A. 397 ; Street, Fed. Eq. Pr. § 1248.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.